Netflix And Chill: The Thursday Murder Club (2025)

Okay, let me state this very clearly from the beginning, books and movies are very different things. You have to accept that they just cannot deliver the same experience. Liberties need to be taken when it comes to adapting something from the page to the screen. Having said that, I believe I made a mistake in rushing to read The Thursday Murder Club, a very successful murder mystery novel that started the lucrative fiction writer phase of Richard Osman's long and healthy career in the world of media and entertainment.

Let's get to the film anyway, and what it gets right. The Thursday Murder Club is set in a fairly luxurious retirement home, in which a few residents work together to see if they can find solutions to various cold cases. The club used to include an ex-PC named Penny (Susan Kirkby), but she is currently barely hanging on to life in the hospice wing. The main members are now Elizabeth (Helen Mirren), Ron (Pierce Brosnan), Ibrahim (Ben Kingsley), and, relative newcomer, Joyce (Celia Imrie). Each brings their own set of skills to the group, but Elizabeth appears to be the one with a past that has her most prepared for anything that can be thrown at them. And what ends up thrown at them is a new murder, a lot of suspects who seem very bleeding obvious, and ties between the past and present that recontextualize friendships and relationships. Oh, and then there's another murder.

Turned into screenplay form by Katy Brand and Suzanne Heathcote, The Thursday Murder Club would seem to be a hard film to get wrong. Chris Columbus is in the director's chair. The cast includes the four leads just mentioned, as well as Naomi Ackie and Daniel Mays as a couple of investigating officers, Henry Lloyd-Hughes and Tom Ellis as younger men who find themselves entangled in the creeping spiderwebs that the murder creates, and Jonathan Pryce, David Tennant, Geoff Bell, Paul Freeman, Ruth Sheen, and Richard E. Grant. It's a real pick 'n' mix of delightful performances.

So why does it feel like such a slog?

The dialogue generally works well, helped by the fact that it's being delivered by people who feel almost perfect in their roles (let's just not mention the accent that Brosnan uses), but the mystery feels half-baked and hard to care about. Having said this, I wonder if I feel that way because I just read the book. While I still stand by my opening statement, there are choices here that feel very odd, including a detail revealed in the very opening scenes that is actually held back in the book until a finale that shows all of the pieces finally falling into place. I can understand some things being omitted, one other plot strand would have required the runtime to have at least 5-10 minutes add on to what already pushes up close to the 2-hour mark, but that just makes it a bizarre experience for those who know the material well enough to know that certain characters and moments are only being hinted at while never being given the time and attention that they deserve.

Both the direction and writing feel trapped by a prison of their own design. They're either too beholden to the book, or they make strange decisions to veer away from elements that could have made the film a much more rewarding experience, for both readers and non-readers alike. And, as much as I complain about it as a new standard, would anyone be bothered if the runtime had been just over, instead of just under, two hours? Those ten extra minutes could have given us a very brief overview of two whole other lives, and those whole other lives feed into the main themes of aging, regret, and the repercussions of different choices made at crucial junctures.

Still, it's easy enough to forget the many mistakes and mis-steps made here when any scene revolves around Imrie having a twinkle in her eye and Mirren having a glint in hers. The cosy and easygoing feel of the whole thing will certainly appeal to those after something that feels like the movie equivalent of a comfortable pair of slippers. I just wish we'd been given nicer slippers. Slippers that stay warm and comfortable for the duration. Not the cheap kind that fall apart after one month of regular use. 

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Haunted Honeymoon (1986)

A tribute to some classic horror comedies from yesteryear, and also a tribute to the wonderful world of radio drama, Haunted Honeymoon stars Gene Wilder in a vehicle that he also directed and co-wrote (with Terence Marsh). It is unabashedly old-fashioned at times, in style and humour, but therein lies the charm of it, for those willing to embrace the central conceit.

Wilder is Larry Abbot, a radio star who is about to marry the lovely Vickie Pearle (Gilda Radner). All could be blissful in his life, except for the fact that he is prone to debilitating episodes of extreme nervousness. As is the way in movieland, a doctor (Paul L. Smith) recommends that those around Larry conspire to frighten him out of his wits while he spends some time visiting the expansive home of his Aunt Kate (Dom DeLuise). But while some want to scare Larry into a cure, some others may be wanting to scare Larry to death.

Like a few other movies I could mention, Haunted Honeymoon is a film that I always remember with fondness, thanks to the stars involved and one or two memorable moments, but then end up disappointed by whenever I revisit it. It’s not a bad film, the look and feel of the whole thing is nicely in line with what Wilder is aiming for. The unfortunate thing about it is that it just isn’t that funny, despite some fine effort from the cast.

Wilder and Radner work well together, and are especially good in the opening scenes, and DeLuise is wonderful in a role that he actually plays quite straight for much of the runtime. Both Bryan Pringle and Ann Way, playing the main household staff, are scene-stealers of the highest order, and you get Jonathan Pryce, Jim Carter, and Eve Ferret joining in with the shenanigans. They all seem to have fun as they ham things up in a classic “old dark house” setting.

While he directs well enough, having already been in the big chair for a few other movies (this would be his last directorial effort), Wilder seems to forget to mine every sequence for comedy. He and Marsh decide to let things play out with a balance between the laughs and the thrills, but I cannot help thinking that packing more gags in would have been a welcome plus, especially when viewers will go in with reasonable expectations of what they would like to see from the leads.

There’s fun to be had here - the opening is great, most scenes with the house staff prove to be highlights - but there’s also a middle section that sometimes feels unforgivably dull. Those are the moments that you forget, rightly so, when thinking back on this with affection. Watch it if you haven’t seen it before. Maybe revisit it if you remember nothing about it. But then leave it to fade into a pleasant memory. It’s for the best.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Mubi Monday: Shopping (1994)

The feature film debut from writer-director Paul W. S. Anderson, Shopping is an energetic slice of nihilism that places a number of pre-stardom UK names in a plot that often feels lifted from the Grand Theft Auto videogame series.

Jude Law plays Billy, a car thief who enjoys crashing into stores, looting some goods, and escaping with a number of keepsakes. He also enjoys picking a speedy car and teasing cops into a road chase he knows he will win. Sadie Frost is Jo, the woman who often feels like Mallory to Billy’s Mickey (albeit in a much less psychotic and murderous way). Having recently been released from a short stint in prison, you might think that Billy would be wanting to keep a low profile for a while, but that isn’t the case. Billy wants to continue on his many “shopping” trips, much to the chagrin of Tommy (Sean Pertwee), a man who finds his criminal business empire shaken up whenever Billy brings too much heat down on the local area.

There’s enough to enjoy here, despite the fact that the script isn’t strong enough to bring everything together in a truly satisfying way. Fair play to Anderson for refusing to make a British film that feels like a hundred other British films, and fair play to the person responsible for the casting, but there’s not much actual character development, and the dialogue is usually laughable and cheesy.

Law and Frost don’t work as well in the lead roles either, despite both being relatively good actors in other movies. Law feels okay when being cocky and confident, but doesn’t convince as much when having to mope around and convey the hurt and anger that helped to make him what he is. Frost tries too hard to be cool and tough, hindered by both the script and her attempt at what I think was supposed to be an Irish accent. Pertwee is excellent though, fitting well in his role. Jonathan Pryce is also very good as an authority figure keeping tabs on Law’s character, and there are small turns from Sean Bean, Eamonn Walker, and Ralph Ineson, among others. Marianne Faithful gets a notable position in the credits, but it’s nothing more than a brief cameo.

Whatever you may think of Anderson’s filmography, it’s easy to see why this worked well as a springboard to a career in the USA. He creates an intriguing, almost noir-like, version of modern Britain, tries to present some decent action, and has an impressive soundtrack to accompany the slick/grime visuals.

I wouldn’t recommend this as an essential watch, but there are worse things you could spend some time on. While Shopping may not hold up as any kind of modern classic, it feels like an important film for many of the people involved, both behind and in front of the camera. And it’s always nice to be reminded of film-makers who choose to make a bold statement, whether successful or not. This film is many things, but I think it certainly classifies as a bold statement.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Netflix And Chill: Scrooge: A Christmas Carol (2022)

It can be hard to decide on your favourite ever movie adaptation of A Christmas Carol - there's the lure of Alastair Sim, the lure of Albert Finney in a musical, and the lure of muppets, of course - but it's quite easy to identify the less impressive examples. The ones that feel more like a serving of lumpy gravy than a mix of the gravy and the grave, if you will. Excluding the most low-budget and independent movies, my own personal least favourite is Christmas Carol: The Movie, with the 2009 Jim Carrey vehicle sitting not too far above it. And now they can be joined by Scrooge: A Christmas Carol, a film that commits the crime of feeling even more lifeless than the spirits that visit the central character, despite the fact that it is, apparently, an animated remake/reworking of the 1970 Albert Finney movie (although that maybe explains the main problem with it, I have never been the biggest fan of that film either).

Luke Evans voices Scrooge. The ghost of Christmas past is voiced by Olivia Colman, a highlight, while Trevor Dion Nicholas voices Christmas present (and the third spectre says all that needs to be said without speaking aloud). Jonathan Pryce is Jacob Marley, James Cosmo is Mr. Fezziwig, Jessie Buckley is Isabel Fezziwig, and Johnny Flynn is Bob Cratchit. 

I am not sure if I can do much more here, naming the main cast members seems to be the closest I can come to being nice about this film.

Directed by Stephen Donnelly, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Leslie Bricusse (who also provided the songs dotted throughout the narrative, or wrote them back when the 1970 movie was being crafted, and who sadly died just a couple of months before the film was released), this is a flat and dull retread of a story that viewers can watch in at least a dozen better movies. Easily. As much as I like many of the cast members, very few of them get to do anything that helps their performance stand out. The notable exception is Colman, who has a voice and manner that turns out to be a great match for her character.

The animation throughout is nice enough, it's clean and neat, but there's a lack of real artistry, and the same can be said of the songs, unfortunately. I dare anyone to get to the end of this and then relay one of the musical numbers back to me. Not exactly, just hum a rendition at me. I doubt anyone could manage it, even if you tried while the end credits were still rolling, because they are so unmemorable.

As disappointed as I was with the visuals and the songs, I was much more disappointed by the script. I can only assume that Donnelly wanted to present a film that felt like a mix of the fresh and the familiar, but he omits all the best phrases that fans of the story will be waiting for. Either use the animation to complement a beautifully traditional adaptation or use the bare bones of the tale to give viewers an enjoyably fresh new spin on it (love or hate Spirited, at least it tried the latter), but don't land smack bang in the middle. That just ends up pleasing nobody, although complete newcomers may find just enough here to enjoy. 

Maybe I'll revisit this one day, and I might view it a bit more favourably, especially if it just stays available to stream while I'm full of hot chocolate and mince pies, lazily browsing for something that won't require me to overthink anything. That's a big maybe though.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Ronin (1998)

An action thriller loved by a lot of people, thanks in no small part to a car chase in the second half that ranks very highly in the echelons on great automotive set-pieces, Ronin is a film I didn't love when I first saw it, but I picked up a shiny disc release of it anyway, and I have now revisited it for the first time in decades. It turns out that I still don't love it.

The overly-convoluted plot can be boiled down to one main description, a team being put together to get hold of a valuable suitcase. The most talented member of the team seems to be Sam (Robert De Niro), a man who used to be a top agent in the CIA. Natasha McElhone plays Deirdre, an Irish woman who is working for employers who want the job done without having to give out more information than necessary.

Although De Niro is the star of the show, essentially, Ronin benefits from a top-notch ensemble cast that also includes Jean Reno, not in his best role but used better here than he has been in many other English-language movies, Sean Bean, Stellan Skarsgård, Jonathan Pryce, and Michael Lonsdale. Not that everyone is as well utilised as De Niro. Bean is disappointingly wasted in his small role, and both Pryce and McElhone are saddled with accents that they don't really manage that well. They're far from the worst I have ever heard (Justin Theroux still sits high on that tree for his atrocious accent mangling in Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle), but they're off enough to be slightly distracting, which may well just be down to me being used to Pryce and McElhone speaking in their native accents for most of their roles.

Written by J. D. Zeik, his first feature script, it's unsurprising that the muddled plotting sags around some great character moments. This seems to focus on dialogue first, set-pieces second, and then the logic of the plotting last. The great David Mamet also helped to polish things up, but there aren't any lines here that feel up to his usual high standard.

Director John Frankenheimer has a filmography full of very missable, but equally worth seeking out, titles. The Manchurian Candidate (1962) is arguably his best film, released in the same year as his other top contender, Birdman Of Alcatraz. Considering his filmography, Ronin is pretty much what you might expect from him. It's good, and I cannot praise the car chase in the second half of the film highly enough, but it's strange to think back to when this was released and remember the amount of love it seemed to get from everyone. I suspect everyone was just relieved in the late '90s to watch an action movie that wasn't yet another slickly packaged, and hyperactive, Simpson/Bruckheimer joint.

If you're a fan of the cast members, if you're a fan of slick action thrillers, or if you just want to see something that feels like a bridge between one mainstream stylistic choice for action sequences and what would become more prevalent in the 21st century (e.g. this feels like a very clear dividing line between the bombastic excess of many previous films and the likes of The Bourne Identity and the next incarnation of James Bond that would come along in the years preceding it), then this is still worth a watch. It's just a hard one to love.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Yule Love It: The Man Who Invented Christmas (2017)

Based on a tale by Lee Standiford, The Man Who Invented Christmas shows us how Charles Dickens reinvigorated both the holiday season and his own reputation when he wrote and published A Christmas Carol.

Dan Stevens plays Dickens, who we first meet during a bit of a lean spell. He still has a good name, and fans, but he has not had a hit in some time, meaning that money is a bit tight in the Dickens household. Not that you would know that, as it continues to be spent on things that show the Dickens family to be better off than they actually are. Desperate for an injection of finances, and inspired by the influences of one or two characters around him, Dickens comes up with the idea of a Christmas tale that will save him from bankruptcy, if he gets it published in time.

Written by Susan Coyne and directed by Bharat Nalluri, this is a film that works beautifully from start to finish. The more I think about it, the more enjoyable I realise it was. It manages to paint a broad, and maybe not entirely accurate, picture of a certain time in the life of the celebrated author, yet it also manages to present the main events of A Christmas Carol in a way that is both familiar and a bit different from previous interpretations. Classic moments are presented, but they're either in the context of being imagined by Dickens as he crafts the tale, being intertwined with his own memories, or simply taking place around him, ready for his writer's mind to store them for later use. It's a great approach to the material, with the script full of many fun references and gags, and Nalluri ensuring that every scene is handsomely-mounted and up to the standards of any decent telling of the central tale.

Stevens is superb in the main role, as desperate to find the thread of his latest story as he is for an upturn in his finances, and he's surrounded by a wonderful assortment of players. Small roles for the likes of Miles Jupp (playing William Thackeray) and Bill Forsythe (a man who provides a couple of famous lines usually uttered by Scrooge) complement strong turns from Justin Edwards (as John Forster, close friend to Dickens), Jonathan Pryce (father to the author, and a man who seems incapable of managing his own finances, having previously erred so badly that it gave his son a lifetime of insecurity and fear), and Anna Murphy (Tara, a maid who provides the inspiration for the new work being a Christmas tale). Morfydd Clark (Kate Dickens), Miriam Margolyes (head housekeeper, Mrs. Fisk), and Simon Callow (as an illustrator) are also worth mentioning, as is Christopher Plummer, who lands himself the prize role of Ebenezer Scrooge, an imaginary creation who comes to life and is honed into the figure we all know during many conversations with his creator.

I wouldn't take anything here as a factual account of the life of Dickens but it provides a nice overview of the man, reinforces the impact that his classic tale had, and also proves interesting enough that those wanting to know more about Dickens will, hopefully, seek out some more material that provides more facts than fiction. This is a delightful story, pure and simple, that makes perfect use of a central figure known for giving us some delightful stories.

8/10

You can buy the disc here.
Americans can buy it here.

Filmstruck Friday: Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

I haven't seen many other movies directed by James Foley. I can't even say that I remember his name when I am not ensuring that I get the details right for this movie review. But he's the man at the helm of one of my favourite films. Yet, and I know this may seem unfair, he's probably the person I would credit least with helping to make this film great. I save most of the praise for the writer, David Mamet adapting his own play for the screen, and the cast, which I will get to in due course.

The plot revolves around a bunch of real estate salesmen who get quite a shock when the company sends along a no-nonsense "axeman" to lay down the law - the top salesman will get a prize, the second will get a lesser prize, third place gets you fired. Knowing that there are a whole stack of new, promising, sales leads in the office, the group start to be tempted, being used to doing whatever it takes to get sales and earning their own commission.

It's hard not to write this review and just fill up space with choice quotes from this movie. Fans of Mamet will already know him as quite the wordsmith, pick any film he's been a part of and you can find some magnificent dialogue, but this may well be his best work, which is quite the compliment when you think of his other stuff (off the top of my head, I highly recommend both House Of Games and The Spanish Prisoner). It's not just the individual soundbites here, Glengarry Glen Ross is an ensemble piece that makes sure everyone involved has at least one chance to relish their role.

Where to begin with the cast? Al Pacino is there, giving a very entertaining performance even as he teeters on the edge of the full self-parody he would ease into by the mid-1990s, Ed Harris is at his angry best, and Alan Arkin is a man who feels less assured and more out of place among the more savage salesmen he works with. Jonathan Pryce is also wonderful for every moment he's onscreen, playing a potential customer being "wooed" by Pacino. You also get Kevin Spacey as the man in charge of the office, and in charge of those precious sales leads, and Alec Baldwin in such a brilliant bit of scene-stealing that I believe, but could be wrong, it set him on the right path of decades of scene-stealing ahead of him, something he does so much better than any lead roles (sorry Alec . . . like he'd ever read this). Despite all of that talent on display, and not one of the cast members lets the side down, the best performance in the movie comes from the one and only Jack Lemmon. It's hard to properly convey just how absolutely brilliant he is here, giving a masterclass in acting as his character is, by turns, bitter, manipulative, charming, depressed, elated, foolish, wise, and more. He seems to be the hungriest of the group, a hunger born of his current situation and his recollection of his past glory days.

Okay, I guess I should give more credit to Foley. Not only does he make sure that the camera is pointing the right way (although this is a very unfussy adaptation of the play that could just as easily have been, with a few tweaks, a straight recording of the show) but he makes the most of the cast and does a great job of not trying to fix anything that isn't broken. Unlike the onscreen events, this is very much a team effort.

The only things stopping Glengarry Glen Ross from being a perfect movie for me are the fact that a) it feels a bit stagey during the few times when I am not distracted by the script, b) I would have preferred some better resolutions for a couple of characters who just end up exiting before the final scenes, and c) there is no c. I just wouldn't have felt right if I ended the review without a reminder to Always Be Closing.

9/10

You can buy this fantastic movie here.
Americans can buy it here.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013)

G.I. Joe: Retaliation is the film that most people expected G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra to be. It's brainless, full of characters that it's hard to care about, and full of action sequences that are hard to watch due to the hectic over-editing. Of course, some people are already saying "but Kevin, that's exactly THE SAME as the first movie." Well, I disagree. I thought the first film was a blast. This, however, is a big disappointment.

Channing Tatum may pop up at the start of this movie, but it's not long before he's sidelined in favour of a new bunch of Joes, with the main one being Dwayne Johnson. There's been a mission to wipe out the unit, allowing the President Of The United States (Jonathan Pryce, playing a fake version of himself due to the events of the first movie) to move on with his dastardly plan, a plan that may leave a lot of countries seriously damaged by Project Zeus, which can cause all of the destruction of a nuclear blast without any of the fallout.

Leading man Johnson is accompanied on this adventure by Adrianne Palicki and D. J. Cotrona, two attractive people to appeal to any teenagers watching the movie. Unfortunately, neither of them have much screen presence. Thankfully, Lee Byung-hun returns in the role of Storm Shadow, Pryce is having a blast and Ray Stevenson gives a performance that, for all its faults, is at least fun and never dull. Walton Goggins is great in a small role, and RZA fans may enjoy his turn as Blind Master. The addition of Bruce Willis in a small role was, I guess, a big coup, but the character that he plays, and how he plays it, just ends up feeling smug, which is becoming a bigger and bigger problem with anything that Willis has been doing over the past few years.

The script by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick is disappointing, with the humour feeling a lot more forced this time around, the plot never having any real sense of urgency (the whole thing feels like viewers are killing time until the good guys blow up some more stuff and win), and everything just feeling distinctly . . . . blah.

Director Jon M. Chu does nothing to help the situation, of course. He still has some good material to work with, in the shape of main characters such as Storm Shadow, Snake Eyes, Roadblock and Firefly, but he very rarely uses them well. A fight sequence involving Snake Eyes (Ray Park in the suit once again, returning from the first movie) and Jinx (Elodie Yung) against a number of soldiers on the side of a mountain looks nice enough, but is completely undone by just how far-fetched it all is. Yes, this kind of stuff IS allowed to be far-fetched, but it's still grounded in a real version of our world, even if it's a heightened reality.

I'm sure there will be some people who will like this film as much as the first movie, or maybe even more so. My advice is to give it a wide berth. It has some good moments, but doesn't make for a satisfying experience, overall.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen (1988)

I admit that I was hesitant when I slid the Blu-ray of The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen into my player. When it was (barely) released in 1988 I saw a few clips that just didn't sell it to me. In fact, it looked a right mess and the poor performance at the box office did nothing to make me doubt my first impression of the film. Fast forward to all these years later and I now know that boffo box office results aren't always a sign of a great movie, but I still thought I was about to watch a mess. An entertaining mess, perhaps, but a mess nonetheless.

Piffle! The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen is a fantastic film. Directed by Terry Gilliam, who co-wrote the screenplay with Charles McKeown (based on the character created by Rudolph Erich Raspe), it is his usual mix of wild imagination, wonderful visuals and warped humour. Apparently, it forms a thematic trilogy after the excellent Time Bandits and the masterpiece that is Brazil, something to do with the ages of man and the power of imagination, but the most important thing to know is that it's a rip-roaring adventure full of spectacle and larger than life figures.

It is a time of war, a time of misery for the occupants of a city being attacked by a large Turkish army. It is "The Age Of Reason". For the benefit of those seeking a distraction from the war, a play is being performed that's all about the life of the adventurer known as Baron Munchausen. Unfortunately, the play is interrupted by the Baron himself, who is unhappy at the way his adventures have been adapted and proceeds to tell the audience the truth, including how he was responsible for starting the war on the city. Mind you, it's not surprising that few people believe his words when he goes on about his sidekicks - the fastest runner in the world, an eagle-eyed sharpshooter, a man with excellent hearing and the ability to exhale gale force winds and the strongest man in the world. Reality then reasserts itself as the war interrupts the Baron and he wanders off to die. Thankfully, that plan doesn't work (or it would be a very short film indeed) and so the Baron decides to save the city, meaning that more adventures are about to unfold.

This wasn't an easy movie to get made, but from what I've seen and heard over the years, few Terry Gilliam movies are. Having seen his work method, I think it's all down to the fact that he yearns to find the fastest way possible to put his constantly inventive imaginings on to film and that makes for very hard work indeed. He has it all there in his mind and you can see how fast it all wants to come out whenever he quickly sketches a new idea or a revision of the scene before him (check out both Lost In La Mancha and The Hamster Factor And Other Tales Of Twelve Monkeys to see what I'm on about). The difficulties behind the camera just don't show themselves, however, and viewers are simply left to enjoy a great final product.

The cast is wonderful, full of so many familiar faces as well as those who just fit their characters perfectly. John Neville is the Baron, the very heart of the film, and he makes for a wonderful companion and narrator throughout. Sarah Polley is only a teeny tiny girl here and she's very good in her teeny tiny girl role. Eric Idle, Winston Dennis, Jack Purvis and Charles McKeown have a lot of fun playing some rather unique characters while Uma Thurman, Jonathan Pryce, Robin Williams, Alison Steadman, Oliver Reed, Bill Paterson, Valentina Cortese, Peter Jeffrey and many others populate the screen in a variety of weird and wonderful roles.

Fans of Gilliam's films should love this one, fans of films such as Big Fish (which has quite a similiar structure) should love this one and fans of fine cinema, in general, should find plenty to enjoy. I didn't expect to say this before putting in that Blu-ray, but I highly recommend this film.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adventures-Munchausen-Anniversary-Edition-Blu-ray/dp/B0012OTRYI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357696323&sr=8-2